Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1887-02-03

A one state advocate in another col
umn objects to division on the ground Of
additional expense in Supporting two
state governments. How many less off
GERS would we have with one state than
two7 One less governor, secretary Of
state, treasurer. attorney general, super
iatendent Of schools, and aunitor TO be
sure. But their combined salaries would
not exceed $4,000. That would nearly
ali be saved by lessening the mileage Of
legislators and other state officers, TO say
nothing Of private mileage TO and from
the seat Of government. We would have
the same number Of county officers, the
same number Of Judges and probably
about the same number Of legislators
with one state as two. Take the state
officers mentioned: IL there not work
enough for one man In the auditors Of
fee In the smallest state In the union,
the secretkfy's. or any OF them7 Is there
much saving OF labor by having the same
amount Of work performed In one Office
than In two? The larger the state the
larger the business OF the Office and the
more clerks are required. Is II not pre-.
sumptuous TO suppose that one man, as
state superintendent. can have any su.
perintendence worthy OF the name over
state 40 large rs South Dakota even7
Most ell the states the size of Illinois.
Ohio, and Indiana have two or three -
One seit OF state officers instead Of two
and one.half the expense as the result
Is the one great argument and stock in
trade Of the one state advocates, and II
Is as hack neyed. ihresdbare and futiia
an argument a. was ever used. They ar
que that the Legislative expense OF run
ming the affairs Of one large state IL
no mere than is one only one-half rs
large. Take two counties, usmlin and
Duel for instance; Is the combined ex
pense Of running those two counties a,
much rs that in Spick or Brownf Is .
u county office In Hainin rs lucrative ~
the same Office In Brown county, Ia tb,
sscretsryship OF Rhode leland worth VI
much Ms New York; Or that OF Main,
ss much as that Of lllinois2 To suppos,
that the labor IN the different depart
ments or Offices OF state having on,
million population is no more than Il
one having half million, and incurs n,
more expcnIe, Ia just as unreasonable a
TO suppose that building 30x70 will cos
no more than one 3Ox35 feet. II isa fac
that can not be disputed that the tax II
the New England states and other sinai
states, is less number Of mills on tn,
dollar than in the larger and more pop
ulous states. Great states like great mel
are more extrayagant. Their affairs ar
not managed as economically. Every
thing Is Fashioned in gigantic mould
II Is the very height Of absurdjty to op
pose the division of Dakota, ON tn
ground Of greater expense to the people
| -watertawn Courior-News.
| Commenting on the above the Huron
lie says: "The suggestion that the cou
rior that great states--grcat communitie
must have things on grander, costlie
scale than smaller ones has its strikin
illustrations on every hand, Iowa. will
two million people. Is thought to b.
grandly extravsgant with a capital build
| ing costing three million; while New
York with seven million people, mus
have one that cost more than ten time
~ much. Thoughtfully work out the "a
ito for yourselves. Remembering tina
the real burdens OF taxation do not fal
upon the rich, nor the rsbble, you ma,
observe that the common laboring an,
business people, Who really do bear TN
burdenr, are richer and better able /,
bear them in Iowa than New York.